Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the election interference case against former President Donald Trump in Washington, revoked an earlier approval of a motion after lawyers representing President Trump said court rules weren’t followed.
On Sept. 5, prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team asked the judge to allow documents to be filed under seal but allow redacted versions of the documents on the public docket. That is routine in cases that may involve classified or otherwise sensitive information.
Judge Chutkan approved the motion.
Shortly after, President Trump’s lawyers asked the judge to reverse the approval because they weren’t given a chance to respond to the initial motion (pdf).
It pointed out that the rules for District of Columbia federal criminal courts give the opposing party two weeks to respond to motions unless the judge decides to provide different deadlines. The judge, however, can’t deny the other party a chance to respond altogether.
Prosecutors can also obtain consent from the defendant before filing a motion, which would then be deemed “unopposed.”
“This procedure is further required by the Due Process clause [of the Constitution] and fundamental fairness,” the lawyers wrote.
“Thus, as a matter of course, the Court should allow Defendant sufficient time to respond to every motion filed in this matter.”
Later that day, the prosecutors responded, saying the judge acted appropriately because they reached out to the defense lawyers to get their position on the motion and because the motion was done in accordance with a protective order the judge issued previously that guides the handling of sensitive information in the case (pdf).
They said that if the defense is always given two weeks to respond and the prosecutors another week to respond to the response, as the local rules suggest, it “would grind litigation in this case to a halt.”
Yet on the same day, the judge did vacate her order, giving President Trump until Sept. 11 to respond and the prosecutors two more days to respond to the response.
By Petr Svab
